Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and America's Air Forces · 2016. 5. 3. · Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and America’s Air Forces about the author Will rogers is

By Will Rogers

Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and America’s Air Forces

WoRking papeR

A P r i l 2 0 1 0

Cover image

An A-10C Thunderbolt II during the first flight of an aircraft powered solely by a biomass-derived jet fuel blend.

(SenIor MASTer SgT. Joy JoSephSon/U.S. AIr ForCe)

Acknowledgements

i would like to thank my colleagues at the Center for a new american Security (CnaS) for their valuable insights and comments throughout the research and writing process. Sharon Burke launched the Promoting the Dialogue project in 2009. CDR Herb Carmen, Dr. kristin Lord, Lt Col kelly Martin and Christine parthemore all provided invaluable feedback during the research and review processes. oliver Fritz, assistant Director of Strategic planning at Headquarters, U.S. air Force, provided invaluable feedback during the research and review process as well. Joseph S. nye, Jr. national Security intern Daniel Saraceno contrib-uted excellent research support and other assistance. as always, Liz Fontaine, ashley Hoffman and Shannon o’Reilly provided guidance and advice through the production process. Many experts from the navy, the air Force, and other U.S. government agencies and ngos, contributed to the discussions from which i derived this analysis; however i alone am responsible for any errors or omissions in this working paper.

Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and America’s Air Forces

about the author

Will rogers is a Research assistant at the Center for a new american Security.

By Will Rogers

A P r i l 2 0 1 0

Wo R k in g papeR

| 5

Climate change could have sig-

nificant implications for U.S. air

missions, which are critical to america’s

ability to protect the homeland, project

power and ensure access to the global

commons.1 in the short term, the air

Force and navy are determining how to

consider climate change in their energy

strategies, both to ensure more depend-

able access to and more efficient use of

fuel, and to meet energy and greenhouse

gas (gHg) reduction requirements set by

the president, Congress, Department of

Defense and state governments. in the

mid to long term, climate change has the

potential to affect air forces more directly

by changing operating and strategic

environments. For example, environmen-

tal changes could affect installations or

equipment, or they may generate desta-

bilizing conditions that could reshape

the international security environment.

To date, however, analysts have not fully

explored what these effects could mean

for U.S. air forces specifically.

Currently, the air forces are split in how they consider the short- and long-term implications of climate change and how they prioritize energy and climate change concerns. The Navy, for example, has been proactive in tying its energy conserva-tion and diversification efforts to national climate change goals to reduce GHG emissions. It recog-nizes its own role in mitigating climate change and believes that climate change will affect its operat-ing environment in observable ways in the near future.2 In contrast, the Air Force is committed to reducing its demand for energy and increas-ing use of alternative fuels, but has been primarily concerned with ensuring access to fuel for mission effectiveness purposes, with less direct focus on how reducing GHG emissions will affect its operat-ing environment or capabilities.

In June 2009, the Center for a New American Security initiated its “Promoting the Dialogue” project to study how climate change could affect the various military services and how these services are planning to adapt to those impacts. In accordance with the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, which required the Department of Defense to consider the impact of climate change on its “facilities, capabilities and missions,” the air forces have started to consider how climate change could affect their ability to operate in a changing security environment. Through extensive research and personal interviews with Navy and Air Force officials, this working paper synthesizes how America’s air forces are considering climate change in their near- and long-term planning and identifies the role energy concerns play in the services’ decision-making calculations. While the majority of this working paper will focus on the Air Force, observations about Navy aviation offer a point of comparison.

Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and America’s Air ForcesA P r i l 2 0 1 0

6 |

C L i M aT e C H a n g e a n D e n e R g y S T R aT e g y: U. S . a i R F o R C e S To Day

The most immediate effect of climate change on U.S. air forces is the consideration of climate change in the services’ energy security strategies. While energy and climate change are related concerns (86 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions stem from energy use3), there is an ongoing tension within most of the military services on how to strike a balance between the desire for energy security (i.e., assured access to fuel in order to promote mission effectiveness) and national climate change goals. However, this tension derives, in part, from a false dichotomy between energy security and climate mitigation efforts perpetuated by the services. There is an often-cited concern by the services that energy conservation and efficiency practices and alternative fuel development that promote mission effectiveness may be at cross-purposes with meeting GHG reduc-tion targets. But the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, as this paper intends to demonstrate, the air forces have indicated through their various conser-vation and efficiency practices and overall energy strategies that there are areas where these concerns can be linked and even mutually reinforced.

Indeed, linking energy security and climate change can have near- and long-term implications for mis-sion effectiveness. In the near term, reduced energy demand and employment of more fuel-efficient aircraft have the potential to give air forces lon-ger endurance (i.e., the ability to refuel less often and stay in combat maneuvers longer) and reduce logistical constraints (e.g., not having to scale back operations because of access to fuel). In the long term, linking energy and climate change offers an opportunity to strengthen mission effectiveness by limiting the amount of GHG emissions that would contribute to global climate change, which in turn could have strategic and operational implications due to changes in the physical, social, cultural and political environments.

Energy security and climate change increasingly have become linked at the highest levels of national policy; this linkage now extends to the Department of Defense. Energy concerns have long topped the agenda for the Department of Defense, the single largest consumer of fuel in the U.S. government. Yet as the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) explicitly states, climate change, energy security and economic growth are “inextricably linked.” Recognizing this linkage signals a preference for investments in energy sources and technologies that both promote improved energy assurance and reduce GHG emissions (such as greener alternative fuels and new aerospace designs that consider fuel efficiency as part of key performance parameters). Though the explicit linkage of energy security and climate change is new, requirements from the president and Congress increasingly promote GHG considerations alongside energy decisions. For example, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13514 in October 2009, which requires all fed-eral agencies to establish GHG emissions reduction targets and to factor these into long-term plan-ning and purchasing.4 To align with the president’s national climate change priorities, the Department of Defense issued an instruction to reduce GHG emissions by 34 percent for non-combat activities at its domestic installations by 2020.5

For the air forces in particular, aviation fuels are one of the most important areas where efforts to address energy concerns also create potential opportunities for the department to meet GHG reduction targets. With aviation fuel consumption constituting nearly 62 percent of DOD’s total fuel demand, the Navy and Air Force have both given serious consideration to improving energy security in order to improve mission effectiveness, reduce costs and ensure access to fuels by combining alternative energy technolo-gies with efficiency and conservation efforts.6 The Navy, for example, has tested biofuel blends in its F/A-18 Super Hornet engine with the intent of con-ducting a test flight on Earth Day – April 22, 2010.7

Wo R k in g papeR

| 7

Meanwhile, the Air Force recently conducted a successful test flight of a biofuel blend in both engines of an A-10 Thunderbolt II – the first time a military or civilian aircraft has been tested with biofuel blends in both engines.8 However, the Navy and Air Force may continue to have a difficult time translating how these efforts contribute to national climate change goals.

This problem stems, in part, from the difficulty in quantifying how much those energy security efforts reduce GHG emissions. Indeed, this difficulty is a part of the frustration the services share about attempting to tie their energy security efforts to cli-mate change priorities. To date, it is not clear to what extent alternative fuels could reduce GHG emissions compared to conventional petroleum-based fuels; estimates vary widely based on the data and models used. Measuring the lifecycle production of alter-native fuels is complex and not well defined. (For example, analysis of algae-based fuel must include the total GHG emissions from developing an algal pond, processing the algae, extracting the oil from the algae, synthesizing the biofuel and shipping the fuel off for consumption.) There is no U.S. govern-ment baseline to measure the lifecycle production process for alternative or renewable fuels. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released a lifecycle analysis on renewable fuels, while the Navy’s Office of the Assistant General Counsel (Installations and Environment) is developing its own lifecycle analysis to help the Navy meet its environmental requirements with fuels that reduce its carbon footprint. Because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Air Force and industry producers have not adopted a single baseline or methodology for calculating GHG emissions, they may generate inconsistent and incomparable data that makes quantifying their efforts more difficult. Developing a U.S. government baseline should be a priority interagency effort among the Department of Defense, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency.

Given the challenges and ongoing tensions within the air services on how to approach and quantify energy security and climate change efforts, it is important to understand how the Navy and Air Force have each taken steps to tackle these issues and the reasoning behind their efforts.

The NavyIn 2009, the Navy established two task forces, Task Force Energy and Task Force Climate Change, to study these issues.9 The Chief of Naval Operations charged Task Force Energy with exploring options to bolster the Navy’s energy security, efficiency and environmental stewardship. Task Force Climate Change was charged with assessing the Navy’s preparedness in responding to climatic changes and providing science-based projections for such changes. However, as conversations with Navy offi-cials confirmed, leaders in both task forces engage each other regularly and work across the two task forces to advance the Navy’s objectives: creating an implicit understanding that energy security and climate change can and should be considered in tandem in order to ensure the Navy’s success in its mission. Indeed, as of late, the link between climate change and energy has been made explicit

an F/a-18 Super Hornet from air Test and evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 at patuxent River, Md. The Super Hornet, with the green insignia and the U.S. navy energy Security logo, will be testing a drop in replacement biofuel made from the camelina plant on earth Day 2010. (noeL Hepp/U.S. naVy)

Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and America’s Air ForcesA P r i l 2 0 1 0

8 |

and embraced by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus. “The global implications of expanding demand and continued reliance on fossil fuels are significant,” Mabus told an audience at the Defense Attachés Association Annual Conference in November 2009. “The stock of proven fossil fuel reserves worldwide is finite, costs will almost certainly continue to go up, and the current way we extract and use fossil fuels too often harms the environment and contrib-utes to climate change.”10

As a result of this high-level commitment, the Navy has been proactive in balancing energy security with climate change mitigation in its approach to achieving energy security. Aviation fuels account for approximately 42 percent of the Navy’s total fuel consumption; the Navy has been working to reduce that through efficiency in its aircraft performance and through alternative fuel develop-ment – particularly in the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the most ubiquitous fixed-wing aircraft in the Navy’s fleet.11 According to Mabus, the Navy is working to improve the F404 F/A-18 engine’s efficiency by 3 percent, to be operational by 2015.12 Speaking before the Naval Energy Forum in October 2009, Mabus said these engine improvements “could save us 127,000 barrels of fuel per year, amounting to $15 million for the Fleet per year at today’s fuel prices.”

When it comes to aviation fuels, the Navy has been forward-leaning in terms of testing and evaluating biofuel blends in its F/A-18 Super Hornet engine as well. Mabus announced at the Naval Energy Forum that by 2020, 50 percent of the Navy’s tactical vehi-cles and shore installations, including its aircraft, will be fueled using alternative sources of energy. It is unclear what percentage of the Navy’s aircraft will use alternative sources of fuel to help meet this benchmark, but by shifting to a biofuel blend, the Navy is positioning itself to take advantage of potential GHG emissions reductions compared to conventional petroleum-based fuels. Indeed, it is the Navy’s history and leadership on energy innova-tion – specifically nuclear propulsion – that helped

trigger experimentation with alternative aviation fuels that may promote energy security and mitigate climate change. Speaking before the Naval Energy Forum, Mabus said, “We are a better Navy and a better Marine Corps for innovation; we have led the world in the adoption of new energy strategies in the past. This is our legacy.”13

The Air ForceIn contrast, the Air Force is prioritizing assured access to fuel supplies and has not as strongly or directly linked its efforts to achieve energy secu-rity with the goal of climate change mitigation. Moreover, due to other pressing institutional challenges, the Air Force has simply devoted less attention to the issue of climate change to date.

In the last several years the Air Force has undergone a period of introspection and institutional transforma-tion in order to address a crisis of identity: in the words of Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz, “what it is” versus “what it should be.”14 A spate of inci-dents over the last several years, including the breach in U.S. nuclear weapons security that led to the forced resignations of Air Force Chief of Staff General T. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne in June 2008, brought unwelcome attention to the service.15 As a result, in September 2008, General Schwartz, speaking before the Air Force Association’s annual conference, said that the Air Force is “tak-ing a hard look at what we do, how we do it and why.”16 In addition, the current conflict landscape has helped shepherd the Air Force through its evolu-tion from a purely air force to one that is increasingly exercising “control and exploitation of air, space and cyberspace.”17 The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been “simultaneously conducted hand-to-hand, and at global distances” and are “characterized by face-to-face meetings with other cultures, yet also by electrons traveling through satellites 22,000 miles overhead.”18 For example, new technological advancements in unmanned aerial vehicles have allowed the Air Force to carve out a niche role in today’s counterinsurgency operations and missions.

Wo R k in g papeR

| 9

Whereas the Air Force has devoted less attention to climate change, as a result of recent institutional shifts and focus on force structure, it has focused intently on assuring access to fuel, which is con-sidered a more immediate challenge to personnel, equipment, policies and mission effectiveness. The ability to project power globally depends on assured access to energy. The service’s outsized dependence on energy means that, for every 10-dollar increase in the price of a barrel of oil, the Air Force increases its annual fuel cost by 619 million dollars.19 As the single largest consumer of fuel within the Department of Defense, uti-lizing approximately 64 percent of DOD’s fuel budget, energy security and cost volatility are, not surprisingly, major concerns for the Air Force.20 Furthermore, the need to transport, store and deliver aviation fuel to aircraft in flight and to bases deep inside active combat zones constitutes a significant logistical risk. In fact, one Air Force official said that even if fuel were free and carbon emissions were nil, fuel would still constitute a major vulnerability given the long logistics tail necessary to support air operations in remote oper-ating theaters and over long distances through the air. Given these considerations, it is understandable that the Air Force has primarily approached energy by balancing best business practices with opera-tional security, leaving climate impacts mostly aside.

However, there are opportunities for the Air Force to integrate energy and climate goals, as seen in the Air Force’s 2010 energy plan. Goals include increasing supply, reducing demand and chang-ing the culture – including a goal to “reduce consumption of aviation fuel by 10% by 2015 against a FY2006 baseline.”21 According to the 2010 QDR, “By 2016, the Air Force will be pos-tured to cost-competitively acquire 50 percent of its domestic aviation fuel via an alternative fuel blend that is greener [author’s emphasis] than conventional petroleum fuel.”22 The emphasis on greener fuels lies, in part, with the Air Force’s

previous experience with testing and evaluat-ing coal-to-liquid fuels which, without large-scale carbon capture, are likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions compared to petroleum-based fuel. (As mentioned earlier, there is no baseline for lifecycle GHG emissions, but the EPA, at the time, had projected coal-to-liquid fuels to contribute more than 100 percent of the emissions of conventional gasoline without carbon capture and sequestra-tion.) Nevertheless, in the near to long term, the Air Force will continue to collaborate with the national labs and look for private sector partner-ships to develop greener substitutes, including plans to test blends of algae-based biofuel in its aircraft, as recently demonstrated with the suc-cessful testing of biofuels in both engines of the A-10 Thunderbolt II.23 While these efforts may be aimed at increasing energy security and maximiz-ing mission effectiveness, and not directly linked to reducing GHG emissions, these efforts ultimately could help the Air Force achieve broader emissions reduction targets.

In the short term, the Air

Force’s most successful

efforts to reduce GHG

emissions and mitigate

climate change are likely

to come from the same

measures that boost its

mission effectiveness:

reducing demand for energy

through conservation and

efficiency efforts.

Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and America’s Air ForcesA P r i l 2 0 1 0

10 |

n oT J U S T B i o F U e L S : e n e R g y e F F i C i e n C y, Co n S e R VaT i o n a n D a LT e R n aT i V e S i n T H e a i R F o R C e F L e e T

In the short term, the Air Force’s most success-ful efforts to reduce GHG emissions and mitigate climate change are likely to come from the same measures that boost its mission effectiveness: reducing demand for energy through conservation and efficiency efforts such as partnering with the commercial aviation industry, training pilots in flight simulators instead of fuel-guzzling aircraft and investing in adaptive wing and alternative propulsion technologies. In fact, the commercial sector is likely to help hasten the Air Force’s efforts to integrate energy performance with its broader emissions reduction targets. While the drafters of the 2010 QDR expect that the Air Force’s testing and standard-setting in alternative fuels will “[pave] the way for the much larger commercial aviation sector to follow,” the Air Force has a rich history in learning lessons from the larger commercial avia-tion industry and is poised to take advantage of the conservation and efficiency practices advanced by the commercial sector.24

There are numerous instances in which the Air Force has learned important lessons from the commercial aviation industry and then leveraged those lessons successfully to reduce its own energy demand and, as a consequence, reduce GHG emis-sions. Useful lessons in energy conservation and efficiency have been drawn from the commercial airline industry by the Air Mobility Command (AMC), the Air Force’s major command lead-ing airlift and refueling operations (i.e., strategic airlifters like C-5s, C-17s; tactical airlifters like the C-130; aerial refuelers like the KC-10 and KC-135). Today, AMC operations consume approximately 44 percent of the Air Force’s total fuel consumption.25 In October 2008, the command stood up a Fuel Efficiency Office (FEO) to explore options to reduce its total energy demand. According to FEO Chief

Colonel Kevin Trayer, the Air Force is integrating lessons learned from the commercial sector into its own practices.26 The Air Force is also leveraging the experiences of its reservists and national guards-men, some of whom are employed by commercial carriers.27

In another example of learning from industry practices, the Air Force has streamlined training with flight simulators and brought in commercial airline pilots to advise the service on fuel savings, including scaling up use of flight simulators.28 Most of the major shifts in training started with heavy-lift aircraft like the C-17, with pilots certified after 70 hours in a high-fidelity simulator and four hours of real cockpit time.29 While shifting training in fighter jets to simulators will be much slower due to the difficulty of simulating real-life conditions of aerial combat, the Air Force is looking to reduce the number of real cockpit hours combat pilots need to certify by substituting additional simulator train-ing. Importantly, this will require improvements in the Air Force’s simulators in order to ensure that increasing their use does not reduce training or readiness. The cumulative effects of these reduced flight requirements cut fuel usage significantly.

The Air Force is also cooperating with the FAA to develop a satellite-based system of air traffic management, known as the Next Generation Air Transportation System, to replace today’s ground-based system of air traffic control.30 This system will increase the capacity and efficiency of air travel while reducing the environmental impact of the aviation industry and allowing it to develop more precise, direct jet routes and approaches, which in turn help to reduce fuel burn and GHG emis-sions.31 In addition, the Air Force and the National Aeronautical Space Administration are conducting aircraft trial tests using adaptive wing technology that would cut drag and offer potentially 30 percent fuel savings on subsonic commercial aircraft.32

Wo R k in g papeR

| 11

Force platforms. For this program, General Electric is working with the Air Force to develop an ultra-high-pressure ratio compressor and new thermal management systems that could improve fuel burn by 25 percent.34 Finally, the ADVENT program is a research effort to study variable-cycle technolo-gies that would give pilots the flexibility to change operational requirements (e.g., switching from tactical maneuvers to long-range flight in the same aircraft) while accommodating lower fuel require-ments for the aircraft.

Overcoming institutional impedimentsDespite the important lessons the Air Force has learned from commercial carriers and its ongoing partnerships with the aerospace community, insti-tutional impediments prevent the Air Force from taking full advantage of advancements made in fuel conservation, efficiency and aerospace design. Today, one of the greatest challenges facing the Air Force is the difficulty in recapitalizing its aircraft fleet.35

Air Force Research and Development, in partner-ship with leading aerospace agencies, is developing opportunities in alternative propulsion that will bolster mission effectiveness. The Air Force has several ongoing initiatives to develop potentially game-changing propulsion systems, includ-ing: INtegrated Vehicle ENergy Technology (INVENT); Highly Efficient Embedded Turbine Engine (HEETE); and ADaptive Versatile ENgine Technology (ADVENT). Each of these programs is intended to increase aircraft endurance, range and/or fuel efficiency. For example, the Air Force Research Laboratory’s INVENT program aims to extend the range and endurance of aircraft 10 to 15 percent, while increasing power and thermal capacity 10 to 30 percent by integrat-ing new power and thermal management systems in existing tactical, unmanned and long-range aircraft.33 Meanwhile, the HEETE program focuses on embedded technologies that will also increase aircraft endurance and range for a variety of Air

Secretary of Defense Robert M. gates sits in the cockpit of a flight simulator at Warrior Hall Flight School XXi Simulation Complex at Hanchey army airfield, aL . Today, the air Force is streamlining training in flight simulators to reduce fuel demand. (U.S. aiR FoRCe MaSTeR SgT. JeRRy MoRRiSon/U.S. DepaRTMenT oF DeFenSe)

Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and America’s Air ForcesA P r i l 2 0 1 0

12 |

GHG emissions, Air Force installation officials are reducing their energy consumption and developing alternative on-base energy sources, in large part to meet energy requirements and mandates at the state and federal level. Some installation commanders may also be concerned with energy assurance and look for opportunities to reduce energy dependence on the domestic electric grid. They do this out of concern that missions could be more vulner-able when installations are tied to what has been described as a brittle domestic energy grid.38 These efforts are aimed at mitigating that vulnerability and ensuring mission effectiveness.

Regardless, in the last several years the Air Force has been making steady investments in energy efficiency at its facilities and implementing renew-able energy projects in order to reduce its energy demand and strengthen energy security. Energy use at Air Force facilities accounts for approximately 15 percent of the service’s total energy consump-tion.39 According to its 2008 Infrastructure Energy Strategic Plan, the Air Force reduced its total facility energy consumption by 30 percent between 1985 and 2005; it is poised to reduce its facility energy demand by another 30 percent by 2015.40 But in order to accomplish that goal the Air Force plans “to get more aggressive.”41 In 2009, the Air Force reduced its energy intensity (i.e., the amount of energy used per gross square foot) by 13 percent from a 2003 baseline established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.42 According to a June 2009 Air Force Energy Program Policy Memorandum, the Air Force aims to continue to “procure ener-gy-efficient products and vehicles” and plans to “[d]esign new buildings that are 30 percent better than American Society of Heating, Refrigerating & Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standards” in order to achieve its objectives for reducing its total energy demand.43

The Air Force is also making significant investments in renewable energy programs, with 34 on-base renewable energy projects in operation.44 Today, the

Airlines can quickly recapitalize their fleets either by replacing aging aircraft with more efficient, off-the-line models or by just replacing outdated engines with more fuel-efficient ones. Indeed, there are financial incentives for commercial carriers to do so since aircraft improvements that result in better fuel effi-ciency strengthen their bottom line. By contrast, the Air Force fleet cannot recapitalize as quickly, in part due to budgetary limitations. Air Force platforms are procured with the intention of lasting decades and funding is authorized according to those timelines.

The other challenge facing the Air Force lies in fuel data collection and analysis. According to one Air Force official, the Air Force is behind the commercial airline industry when it comes to analyzing its own fuel consumption. Airlines use state-of-the-art infor-mation technology systems to analyze fuel data in real time. For example, when a commercial aircraft lands, the carrier can assess in real time the aircraft’s depar-ture overfuel (i.e., how much excess fuel the aircraft is carrying for the flight that it did not use). Carriers can then make the necessary corrections to optimize fuel conservation for its aircraft fleet. The Air Force, however, still records and inputs this information manually, requiring more time to analyze data and make corrections to optimize aircraft performance. A 2007 Air Force Audit Agency report found that the Air Force does not have an effective or efficient method for obtaining reliable aviation fuel consumption data.36 As DOD Inspector General Claude Kicklighter reported to Congress in 2007, “[Air Force] Auditors concluded that the Air Force could better optimize aviation fuel use through centralized visibility and implementa-tion of a formalized fuels management program with clearly defined policies and procedures, goals, metrics and incentives.”37

Energy investments at Air Force installationsAir Force officials are making significant invest-ments in better efficiency, conservation and renewable energy programs at domestic installa-tions. While there are tangible benefits in reduced

Wo R k in g papeR

| 13

next fiscal year if Congress adjusts for (or cuts) the money the Air Force did not need for purchasing fuel or electricity.

C L i M aT e C H a n g e a n D J o i n T a i R p o W e R : F U T U R e C H a L L e n g e S a n D o p p o R T U n i T i e S

While it is clear that energy security will con-tinue to sculpt how the air forces integrate climate change considerations into their strategic and operational planning, less clear are the mid- to long-term implications that climate change will have on air forces. While the Department of Defense anticipates increased requests to conduct humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR) operations in response to increased and pos-sibly more severe natural disasters resulting from climate change,49 current climate science has yet to offer the level of detail or fidelity that would be necessary to fully elucidate the impacts of climate change on the air operating environment. Potential effects could include, for example, more turbulent air, changes in bird migration, increased low-level fog density and more intense and potentially fre-quent storms at air force and naval installations.

Conversations with Air Force officials show that they are acutely aware that climate change could alter the strategic environment by necessitating more frequent responses to natural disasters and relief missions, circumstances in which the air forces already play a critical role.50 Domestically, air missions were a critical part of the joint opera-tions in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The Air Force played a significant role in search-and-rescue, evacuation and relief drop missions, for instance. Air Force helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft flew 648 and 4,095 sorties respectively, res-cuing 4,322 stranded people and evacuating 26,943 displaced persons from the affected region.51 Air missions were also essential in responding to the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the October 2005 earthquake in Pakistan. Most

Air Force operates the largest solar array in North America at Nellis Air Force Base (AFB), Nevada, generating approximately 14 megawatts of energy, or 25 percent of the base’s total energy demand.45 According to President Obama, the Nellis solar array will “reduce harmful carbon pollution by 24,000 tons per year, which is the equivalent of removing 4,000 cars from our roads.”46 Meanwhile, the Air Force plans to expand its solar energy portfolio with a 3,200-acre solar power project at Edwards AFB, California, which is slated to generate approximately 600 megawatts and would surpass Nellis AFB as the largest solar project.47 Continuing its investment in renewable energy projects is likely to pay significant climate divi-dends by reducing the Air Force’s carbon footprint while achieving its own energy security objec-tives. Indeed, given the recent DOD instruction to reduce GHG emissions by 34 percent from non-combat activities at its more than 300,000 domestic installations by 2020, the Air Force would do well to consider explicitly linking energy security with climate change to take full credit for the work it is already doing to meet the department’s goals.48

Despite these investments, however, there are no financial incentives for Air Force base and instal-lation commanders to scale up these conservation, efficiency and renewable energy programs beyond what they need to do to meet their own instal-lation’s energy requirements. Indeed, the lack of incentives is a point of frustration for some Air Force officials who would like to reinvest money saved from reduced energy consumption in better base infrastructure and training platforms, such as state-of-the-art flight simulators. However, money saved from reduced energy consumption is not considered money saved, but rather a cost avoid-ance (i.e., the money was authorized by Congress, but because it was not used it does not need to be allocated). In fact, there may even be a disincen-tive for Air Force commanders to scale up these programs since it could result in budget cuts in the

Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and America’s Air ForcesA P r i l 2 0 1 0

14 |

reorient the service for long-term responses to climate change (i.e., it is unclear how many HA/DR missions would be equivalent to the resources, capabilities, and forces need for Air Force opera-tions in Iraq or Afghanistan). Nevertheless, while the scale and types of missions are distinct and require different resources, Air Force officials are confident that those types of disaster relief missions will not approach the scale of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and that they will be able to adapt to changes in the strategic environment as needed.

The Need for Further Climate ScienceWhile the Air Force is resilient and capable of adapting to changes as needed, it will still need better climate science and future projections to gen-erate more useful planning documents.

Indeed, Air Force leadership needs to systemati-cally study how and if climate change will affect its operating environment given current and advancing scientific projections. It is still unclear if and how climate change will affect atmospheric chemistry in ways that compromise current and future Air Force platforms, facilities and operations. This lack of understanding is rooted, in part, in the lack of fidel-ity in the kinds of information that the Air Force – or any of the military services – would find useful. As a forthcoming CNAS report will show, there is a serious “translation” problem between what the effects of climate change mean for the Department of Defense and the various military services, Combatant Commands and defense agencies.53 Numerous conversations with government officials, including those in the Air Force, indicate a lack of “actionable” data, or scientific data that can be used to make clear policy decisions, to help defense officials make decisions that relate to climate change – especially at the operational level.

To quantify the effects of climate change on their operating environment, Air Force officials have expressed interest in a base-by-base assessment of how climate change will affect facilities and

recently, the air forces have played a crucial role in U.S. response efforts to Haiti following the January 12, 2010 earthquake. While the temblor was not a climate-induced disaster per se, the resulting air missions performed in Haiti are likely to be repli-cated in similar disaster response missions where millions of lives are affected and where air force assets can provide critical information to joint and interagency efforts. For example, with the U.S. Air Force taking a lead in military space missions, Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) agencies provided joint and interagency partners with unclassified high-altitude surveillance imagery to assist in recovery and relief operations in Haiti.

Even while the Air Force “recognizes the impor-tance of addressing climate change, and supports all DOD and administration objectives in tackling this global problem,” it has yet to fully conceptualize the effects that climate change may have on its strategic and operating environments.52 Similar to the chal-lenges facing the other services, Air Force officials are not clear about how climate change could affect their facilities, capabilities and missions in ways that go beyond their capacity to adapt. For example, it is not clear if there is a threshold in the number of HA/DR missions it could be tasked with responding to that would force the Air Force to fundamentally

While the Air Force is

resilient and capable of

adapting to changes as

needed, it will still need

better climate science

and future projections

to generate more useful

planning documents.

Wo R k in g papeR

| 15

DOD’s vision for energy security and climate change – as articulated in the 2010 QDR – and the president’s national climate and energy goals. The Air Force would also improve its public image on these issues by taking full credit for the climate change mitigation efforts already undertaken through its extensive, cross-cutting energy security strategy.

The Department of Defense should systematically study what incentives would encourage Air Force, Navy and other service-level commanders to implement conservation and efficiency practices and invest in renewable energy programs at the base and installation level. For example, today’s “cost avoidance” structure is a disincentive for many of the services to invest in renewable energy programs. Reduced energy costs do not translate into real dollars that commanders can invest in other programs. In fact, those commanders could see budget reductions since they did not use all of the money authorized to them. Properly aligned incentive structures have the potential to generate tremendous benefits in reduced energy demand and alternative energy production. The Air Force has already demonstrated the benefits of large scale conservation, efficiency and renewable energy programs.

Congress should examine how to better ensure that the Air Force and Navy can take advantage of advances in energy efficiency and conservation, including improved engine models and structural enhancements made by the commercial sector. Perhaps the most immediate gains could come from investments in a fuel data collection system that allows the Air Force and Navy to analyze fuel data and make corrections in real time.

Finally, the Air Force should develop a research agenda that studies a range of potential short- and long-term operational and strategic challenges linked to climate change. The Navy’s Task Force Climate Change is a model that could be replicated. Task Force Climate Change has

operations at specific locations. For example, a base-by-base assessment could analyze whether climate change will cause changes in fog density that could disrupt low-level flight operations. In particular, climate-induced bird migrations could cause more frequent bird strikes during low-level flight operations. The Air Force’s Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard Team already studies how to preserve war-fighting capability by reducing wildlife hazards with aircraft, and the Department of Defense has members on the Bird Strike USA steering committee to study this very issue. There is a developing need to study climate-induced shifts in bird migrations and what that could mean for strikes on aircrafts. A base-by-base assessment would help identify hazard areas and sites where flight operations need to be more closely monitored to prevent accidents.

R e Co M M e n DaT i o n S

The Air Force should fully integrate energy security and climate change into its future planning efforts. While there are clear indicators where the Air Force can better align energy and climate change efforts – and indeed is enacting short- to near-term testing with biofuel blends in its aircraft fleet – it is not clear if these efforts will be fleeting or are intended to reduce GHG emissions over the near to long term. Until the Air Force has fully developed an understanding of the implications of climate change, there may not be a vested interest in developing a long-term strategy that fully and effectively integrates energy security and climate change mitigation. Indeed, adopting a long-term strategy that integrates these two related concerns has long-term (if uncertain) benefits for mission effectiveness. These could include longer, less energy-intensive missions and reduced GHG emissions that contribute to global climate change, which could have strategic and operational implications, as outlined above. What is more, integrating the two could also have immediate, positive consequences. The Air Force would demonstrate that its goals align more broadly with

Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and America’s Air ForcesA P r i l 2 0 1 0

16 |

considered several key questions about the impli-cations of climate change for the Navy that are intended to make senior leaders more comfortable in dedicating operation and maintenance resources to study and respond to climate change.54 Air Force strategists should develop similar questions aimed at determining which specific effects current climate science models indicate are likely to occur; where the Air Force can build synergies with the climate science community to help improve its understand-ing of climate changes, including potential changes to atmospheric chemistry that could have impli-cations for the Air Force (and Navy); how these impacts could affect the Air Force’s ability to con-duct missions at the strategic and operational level; what trade-offs are involved with focusing time and funding on climate change; and what interagency and joint partnerships would further its under-standing of, and preparation for, climate change.

Co n C LU S i o n

U.S. air forces have yet to fully develop an advanced understanding of the complex consequences of cli-mate change. However, understanding how climate change could affect air forces in the short to long term will offer them an opportunity to prepare for changes in the strategic and operating environ-ments in anticipation of potential challenges that could threaten mission effectiveness. It is clear, and not at all unexpected, that energy security remains a priority for the air services. While the Navy’s his-tory and leadership have positioned it to be more forward-leaning in tying its energy security initia-tives to climate change, the Air Force continues to maintain separate energy security and climate change strategies. It should link the two together to take full credit for climate mitigation efforts tied to its robust energy security strategy.

The Air Force has made great strides in adopting conservation and efficiency practices within its aviation platforms and installations and integrating aerospace advancements into its existing fleet. But

institutional challenges surrounding recapitaliza-tion of its fleet and its inefficient fuel optimization data collection and analysis system inhibit the Air Force’s ability to reap the total benefits of these practices. Meanwhile, the lack of incentives to scale up on-base renewable energy programs needs to be resolved.

Though the Air Force is confident in its ability to adapt to changes in the security environment, it has not fully conceptualized how difficult it may be to adapt to potential climate changes. At the operational level, current climate science can not yet adequately explain how climate change will affect the air forces’ platforms and installations. As pos-ited earlier, climate change could potentially affect the operating environment with more turbulent air, changes in bird migration, increasing fog density and more intense and potentially frequent storms at air force and naval installations. Better assessments and models will increase the understanding of the operational implications of climate change for all air forces. The Navy’s adoption of the inextricable link between energy and climate change and its process of integrating these issues into its planning and making leaders more comfortable about dedicating finite resources to study these issues could serve as a useful model for the Air Force. Indeed, the Air Force has a vested interest in developing a more robust understanding of the effects climate change could have on its facilities, capabilities and missions.

Wo R k in g papeR

| 17

e n D n oT e S

The term “U.S. air forces” generally refers to the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. 1

navy, as many of the issues outlined may apply to each of them. however, most observations relate to specific services and are noted as such. A recent brief on climate change and maritime missions also covers U.S. navy issues on this topic.

Christine parthemore, “promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and the 2

Maritime Services,” CnAS, Working paper (March 2010).

environmental protection Agency, “3 Draft Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and Sinks: 1990-2008” (9 March 2010).

The White house, “4 executive order 13514—Federal Leadership in environmental, energy, and economic performance” (8 october 2009).

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), “5 greenhouse gas Targets Announcement for DoD” (29 January 2010).

U.S. Air Force, 6 2010 Air Force Energy Plan, and rebekah gordon, “navy energy Strategy Forthcoming,” InsideDefense (22 December 2008).

Liz Wright, “7 green hornet to take Flight on earth Day,” navy office of Information (30 March 2010).

“8 Biofuel Used in Air Force Aircraft Test Flight,” United Press International (25 March 2010).

parthemore: 6. 9

Center for a new American Security, “10 prepared remarks of the honorable ray Mabus, Secretary of the navy” (18 november 2009).

rebekah gordon, “navy energy Strategy Forthcoming,” 11 InsideDefense (22 December 2008).

remarks by the honorable ray Mabu12 s, naval energy Forum, McLean, Virginia (14 october 2009).

Ibid.13

remarks at the Conference of the national guard Association of the United 14

States by general norton Schwartz, Baltimore (22 September 2008).

Thomas e. ricks and Joby Warrick, “15 Tough punishment expected for Warhead errors,” The Washington Post (18 october 2007).

Air Force Association Convention Speech by general norton Schwart16 z (16 September 2008).

Air Force Association Convention Speech by general norton Schwart17 z (15 September 2009).

Ibid. 18

2010 Air Force Energy Plan19 : 2.

Ibid: 4. 20

Ibid: 5. 21

DoD, “Quadrennial Defense review (QDr)” (February 2010). 22

national renewable energy Laboratory, “23 Algae Biofuels r&D at nreL” (october 2009).

QDr: 87.24

Laura McAndrews, “25 Fuel efficiency Among Top priorities in AMC’s energy Conservation,” Air Mobility Command public Affairs (5 october 2009).

Ibid. 26

Ibid. 27

gayle S. putrich, “28 rising oil prices Change USAF ops,” Defense News (14 July 2008).

Ibid. 29

Chuck paone, “30 Air Force, DoD, Center Move Forward on nextgen” 66th Air Base Wing public Affairs (5 February 2008).

Federal Aviation Administration, 31 What is NextGen? (28 october 2009)

guy norris, “32 nASA to Conduct Adaptive-Wing Trials,” Aviation Week (5 March 2010).

“33 ge Aviation entering new propulsion era with Multiple r&D programs,” Aerospace and Defense News (9 March 2009).

Ibid.34

remarks by Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley before the 35

Aerospace Industries Association (18 november 2008).

Air Force Audit Agency, Aviation Fuel optimization (9 March 2007). 36

DoD Inspector general, “37 Semiannual report to Congress” (March 2007).

general Accounting office, “38 Defense Critical Infrastructure: Actions needed to Improve the Identification and Management of electrical power risks and Vulnerabilities to DoD Critical Assets” (october 2009).

2010 Air Force Energy Plan39 .

U.S. Air Force 2008 Infrastructure energy Strategic pla40 n: 5.

Ibid. 41

See Sec. 102., “energy Management requirements,” in “energy policy Act 42

of 2005,” pub. Law 109-58 (8 August 2005).

Michael Donley, “43 Air Force energy program policy Memorandum” (16 June 2009).

environmental protection Agency, “44 green power partnership profile – U.S. Air Force” (22 March 2010).

Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and America’s Air ForcesA P r i l 2 0 1 0

18 |

Martin LaMonica, “Air Force base in nevada goes Solar with 14-Megawatt 45

Array,” cnet.com.

remarks by president Barack obama on Alternative energy at nellis AFB (27 46

May 2009).

“47 Air Force Starts Down runway Toward renewable eUL projects,” Defense Communities 360 (4 December 2009).

DoD, “48 greenhouse gas Targets Announcement for DoD” (29 January 2010).

National Security and the Threat of Climate Chang49 e, The CnA Corporation (2007).

This research was done on background. 50

Dr. Daniel L. haulman, “51 The U.S. Air Force response to hurricane Katrina” (17 november 2006).

2010 Air Force Energy Plan52 .

Will rogers and Dr. Jay gulledge, 53 Lost in Translation: Closing the Gap between Climate Science and National Security Policy (forthcoming from CnAS, April 2010).

parthemore: 6. 54

Wo R k in g papeR

| 19

About the Center for a New American Security

The mission of the Center for a new american Security (CnaS) is to develop strong, pragmatic, and principled national security and defense policies that promote and protect american interests and values. Building on the expertise and experience of its staff and advisors, CnaS aims to engage policymakers, experts and the public with innovative fact-based research, ideas, and analysis to shape and elevate the national security debate. a key part of our mission is to help inform and prepare the national security leaders of today and tomorrow.

CnaS is located in Washington, D.C., and was established in February 2007 by Co-founders kurt Campbell and Michèle Flournoy. CnaS is a 501c3 tax-exempt nonprofit organization. its research is nonpartisan; CnaS does not take specific policy positions. accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the authors.

© 2010 Center for a new american Security.

all rights reserved.

Center for a New American Security1301 pennsylvania avenue, nW Suite 403 Washington, DC 20004

TeL 202.457.9400 FaX 202.457.9401 eMaiL [email protected] www.cnas.org

About the CNAS Natural Security Program

The Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a

non-profit, non-partisan national security research

organization based in Washington, D.C., launched

the Natural Security program in June of 2009. CNAS

initiated the program in order to study the near-term

national security implications of natural resources

supply and demand patterns, as well as the security

consequences of high consumption rates. The

program focuses on energy, minerals, water, land,

climate change, and biodiversity, as well as the links

among these resource challenges. The ultimate goal

of the program is to offer practical solutions and

strategies to anticipate, shape, and respond to the

ways in which natural resources will shape the

21st century strategic environment.

1301 pennsylvania avenue, nWSuite 403Washington, DC 20004

STRong, pRagMaTiC anD pRinCipLeD naTionaL SeCURiTy anD DeFenSe poLiCieS

TeL 202.457.9400FaX 202.457.9401eMaiL [email protected]

www.cnas.org